jdub27

The committee, who are representing various stakeholders, have been tasked to pick the best three from the list provided using the criteria provided by the first committee. If the committee decides that "North Dakota" is one of the top 3 that fits the criteria as laid out, then you'll have your way. If they decide it doesn't, then I guess that is that. It doesn't get a free pass because people "said so" or anonymous people clicked a bunch of times on a website. That's not the way the process has been laid out.

Again, I said scientific. You're citing two anonymous polls that a single person could cast as many votes as they please (and they did, see the multiple obvious copy and paste jobs or our good buddy the Ermine for proof). On top of that, there was zero limitations on who could vote. It was anonymous, you didn't have to be a stakeholder of any kind or have UND's best interests in mind. The only "facts" that those polls show is that basically anyone can use the internet. You claim legal jargon and then pass over the part where it specifically says "adopt" and "new nickname". Yet you don't say how not adopting anything and using North Dakota (which has been used since 1883) qualifies as new. As others have stated, I have a hard time seeing the representatives picked to represent the stakeholders putting North Dakota on the ballot. It solves zero of the problems that UND is in and continues to give the group of people that regard the Fighting Sioux nickname as some sort of deity false hope that it will somehow be reinstated as UND's nickname some day.

I still have yet to see anything that could remotely be considered accurate that claims the "majority" opinion is to remain North Dakota. What group are you basing this off of? Alumni, donors, season ticket holders, anonymous internet comments? Did the NCAA come out with some sort of ruling that clarified this? The wording of the settlement agreement is definitely open for debate. I personally don't see how dropping Fighting Sioux and then doing nothing further can be considered "adopting a new nickname". Not have a nickname is definitely not adopting something and North Dakota is clearly not new. It also leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and UND continues to wallow in the same mess it is trying to get out of.

Zimmer drops the hammer: "Adrian really has two choices: He can either play for us or he cannot play," Zimmer told reporters on Wednesday, via the NFL Network. "He's not going to play for anyone else, that's just the way it's going to be."

I spoke with someone within UND about this. He said at that they had not yet arranged anything for UND fans yet but were going to look into it. I personally don't see NDSU offering any sort of courtesy to UND on anything that wasn't spelled out specifically in the contract, so that may be a bummer for those that can't get in line early. My hope was a small corner of the lot marked off but with them not having anything in place at this point, I'm note even sure they'll give the courtesy of a tent or something small like that. That being said, my group will be there and have spots.

I don't think anyone is saying it is important that this be a huge game. What is amusing is that FU fans keep trying to convince themselves it isn't when the following have occurred in Fargo: -NDSU athletic department holds a press conference to announce the two games and make sure everyone knows that the games are just a schedule filler even though no games have ever previously been announced via press conference -NDSU athletic department releases ticket prices and the UND game is priced between 50-67% higher than the next highest game (which is against "rival" UNI and homecoming to boot) -Bison Media Blog ranks the game as the #2 most intriguing regular season game in the nation (though obviously it is for them for monetary reasons) -NDSU bookstore/marketing department releases a shirt that is a "NDSU Bookstore Exclusive Design" for the game almost 4 months before its played (make sure to note the exclusive part as the excuse is already being thrown out there that the shirt was UND's idea) But somehow the claim is that UND and its fans are the ones pushing the hype on the game...

The NDSU Bookstore has already created shirts for what was deemed "just a game to fill the schedule". Don't see any for the UNI or SDSU games listed though...

I believe the wording was that the Alerus Center was going to pay for new turf, but UND wanted something beyond that so they offered to share in the cost. I assume that they would be able to help pay for the cost of any improvements at the BESC if they wanted to.

You aren't going to find much for statistics that back up your claims about Hunter's defense, it is just not good (neither of the other two were either, but there is little to no difference, if not worse depending on what method you use). His only saving grace is that his offense has barely offset his defense to make him a replacement level player overall, which Arcia has been unable to do. The difference is that Arcia is also only making $533K vs. $10.5 million for Hunter. Torii playing in the field offsets anything he brings from the offensive side.

Maybe, but is doing what you suggest worth it to go through the 30 day posting circus and subsequent interview proess when you feel like your best replacement is already on staff and can avoid all that because they are already a UND employee? Not to mention a month plus of unrest where other teams are contacting UND's recruits and current players trying to make a decision whether to stay or go.

While I don't agree fully with you, that is something that is by no means unique to Grand Forks. The Herald has had quite a few more than blunt pieces on UND athletics in the recent past.

Truthfully, they've been doing it with quite a bit of luck and a friendly schedule. Their underlying pitching numbers are actually fairly close to last year. The big difference is they are bunching hits together like no other and the stats show because of it that they have won around 7 more games than they should have. Likely isn't sustainable but hopefully it will give them some confidence and they can keep it going. Wouldn't be the first team have results that fly in the face of what the stats show for the length of a season. Hopefully catching a game over the weekend, have much higher expectations then when I originally planned to go, which is a nice change from the last few years. We'll have to agree to disagree about Hunter. Same guy that "mentored" Morneau by punching him? Or went after Pujols when he was in Anaheim? Some of his personal views (which he openly defends, making them fair game) and reactions to the media when he is questioned on them doesn't scream leader to me. That being said, his offense his been better than predicted while his defense has been as bad as predicted. If they aren't going to bring Vargas back up, I'm hoping they can find someone who is at least adequate in the field and move Hunter to DH, keeps his bat in the line-up but also shores up the defense a little bit.

IALTO

They use a different prong of compliance. NDSU uses surveys to show that females on campus aren't interested in more opportunities. Proportionality and equal "tiered" treatment is disregarded because of it. No other way to remain "compliant" while offering over 2 male student athletes opportunists for every one female.

Yep. But barring something incredibly unforeseen, I can't see it being dropped. Don't agree with it, but that's unfortunately the way it is.

Not saying it wouldn't be close and NDSU still wouldn't be towards the top, just saying they wouldn't have a consecutive string of 1st place runs like they had. On the men's side, I think that NAU and SUU are better in outdoor and quite a bit in CC (both are top 25 teams in the latter). NDSU would still do very well on the women's side but it would be a lot more interesting than some of their Summit meets have been. Looking at your table, what's clear is that when you are weak in T&F/CC and those sports make up 40% of the comparison, it makes a huge difference. UND has had subpar facilities in those areas for a long time. Everything I hear about the new IPF and the 300m track will make huge strides in helping with that across the board.

Impressive work, thanks for putting it together. Shows some interesting things, though I wouldn't call it a direct apples to apples comparison due to the relative difference in strength in the conferences (even year to year) in various sports (for example, NDSU would have nowhere near the dominance in T&F/CC in the Big Sky, though they would have still outperformed UND) and it leaves out a few of the stronger programs for both schools (Wrestling for NDSU, MH/WH and occasionally the S&D teams at UND). I don't think anyone will argue that UND has work to do in their non-revenue, this definitely shows it, but the IPF will likely make an incredible difference for the T&F programs plus softball/baseball. The other thing that this doesn't show is that UND spreads out its resources more due to supporting more student athletes (449 vs. 411) and a lot of it comes on the women's side (205 vs. 129). That leads to a combination of thoughts, including that UND at some point may have to look at cutting a program or two and that while NDSU remains in compliance with Title IX through the "interest and abilities" method, the FCOA thing is going to start bringing that disparity more and more into the public's view and very well could bring in some unwanted scrutiny.

UND receives the revenue from ticket sales for UND sports, though they contract with REA to handle them. If you were referring other events, then no, UND wouldn't report any of those. I believe the number the only UND-related ticket numbers that might not be included would be the suites at the Alerus and REA. I'm not sure how those are handled, though I know that the total revenue brought in by the ones at the REA is significant and only growing due to the large waiting list they continue to have for them.

This isn't true. It's all owned and run by non-profits and their tax returns are available online.

Everything in life is cyclical. Things are never as good or bad as they seem.

They were denied membership in 1996 and promptly joined the Mid-Con (now Summit). Not sure if they officially applied for the spot UNC got in 2006 (under direction of former AD Tom Douple) but records show they were interested at the time. The Big Sky is where they always aspired to be and they bolted when given the chance in 2010, even though Douple had switched over to commissioner of the Summit by that time. For fun, here's a quote from former athletic director Tom Douple when he was at SUU:

I'll give them credit, they do pretty well in some the ones they do manage to field a team for, but still ended up looking up to both of the South Dakota schools in the season long standings.

Glad you're on record supporting an absurd disparity in opportunities provided for female student athletes. Just in case you forgot the numbers: 282 unduplicated men participants (68.6%) and 129 unduplicated women participants (31.4%). I'm sure that won't be an issue at some point in the future.

There will be no change in colors as has been stated from the start of this. Green and pink are the official school (academic) colors. Green and white are the official colors of the athletic department. Black is commonly added and used as well though I'm not sure if it was ever "officially" added.

Is the financial mess that Chapman left NDSU in not enough facts for you? Let the ignorance shine bright Dan. Teeder's points are spot on but I know it doesn't go along with the revisionist history taught at FU. Since you're so enlightened, share the details of NDSU's years long study. Was it to keep women's participation numbers down, giving more money to go around to the athletes that were there but allow men twice as many opportunities than females to participate at the D-1 level?